io_update_reservation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, it discloses the confirmation protocol, the two-phase preview/confirmToken fallback, that phase 1 makes NO network call, and a prompt-injection warning against repeating writes because text in a tool result asks for it. That is unusually rich behavioral context an agent could not infer from annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the purpose and the 'only changed fields' rule, then layers the confirmation behavior. The final anti-injection sentence is long and slightly dense, but each clause carries operational weight rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the phase-1 'confirmation-required' preview and confirmToken return, plus the no-network-call guarantee. For a destructive multi-parameter mutation this is complete enough to invoke safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful partial-update semantics ('only provide fields to change') that the schema alone does not convey. The confirmToken's conditional usage is already fully documented in the schema, so no extra credit there.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing iOffice reservation') and immediately clarifies partial-update semantics ('Only provide fields to change'). It is clearly distinguishable from io_create_reservation, io_delete_reservation and io_get_reservation, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete usage conditions: supply only changed fields, expect a confirmation prompt or a phase-1 preview with no network call, and repeat with the confirmToken only after user approval. It explains when the token flow applies (clients without elicitation) but does not state preconditions like ownership or permission requirements.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.